Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5583172
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is an important issue. I welcome the fact that my party has permitted a free vote on the matter. I thank all the groups that have written to me both in support of and against the Bill and all the individual constituents who have written, no doubt, to most of us, many sending a standardised campaign email either for or against the Bill. The matter hinges on what we consider to be nature, what is considered to be acceptable forms of hunting and pest control and what should be considered to be unacceptable cruelty. Of great importance to me, as I have already stated in an intervention to the sponsor of the Bill, is the need to respect the right of farmers to protect their livestock, such as poultry and lambs, which are vulnerable to predators, such as foxes, and the right to use a dog in that protection. It is also important to respect the existence of traditional rural activities and country sports, including shooting, many of which, we are told, would not be prevented by the passing of the Bill. That needs to be tested. When it comes to people who go into country areas and set terriers or other dogs into badger setts, foxholes or rabbit holes for some sort of enjoyment — I have spoken to people who take part in that activity and enjoy it — I consider that to be unacceptable cruelty both to the dogs and the wild animals.
I will give way.
I welcome the legislation that exists. If more is needed to prevent that activity, I would support that. At election time, I have spoken to people who would justify that activity and have told them, "I do not agree with you and I do not seek your vote if that is what it hinges on". Animal welfare matters. Gratuitous cruelty should be prevented. I accept the need to tighten legislation. I share the concerns about the potential consequences of the Bill for dog owners, farmers, country sports enthusiasts and those engaging in legitimate pest control and, from time to time, in the necessary culling of species such as deer, minks, foxes and badgers using dogs. I am also concerned about the scale of the prison sentences proposed in the Bill. The decision before us today is whether we consent to the Bill's progressing to Committee Stage to undergo wider consultation and for the opportunity to clarify, improve and amend it. I am content to support the Bill's progress to that stage.
422 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.54 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.44 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.